aj wrote:The sound of the wind as nothing actually moves. Although the car could be running Easy to sync.

Yeah, I was hoping for something like Pro8 put up a while back - I can't find it anymore but it was a static shot of a girl talking, shot in color but desaturated to be in b/w. It was fairly lovely and very inspiring, I thought, to see sync sound super 8 like that.
G

Kodak announced, via facebook livestream, that the special edition will be coming out in early spring for $2k. way too much for me.
apparently "shortly" afterwards a cheaper model will be released (no timeline, or price point, given however)

As if Kodak never had anything to do with film and showmanship, a only half functioning so-called prototype, half in the dark, out of focus when brought closer to the camera, one Josh never handing the thing to the other Josh and not showing what he wants to explain . . .

Was there any synch-sound footage with the test roll? No. So, the SD card thingy does not work, yet. Man, $2,000 for such a lousy throw-away product with no word about serviceability, serious? I can buy myself a Mitchell 16 from eBay today for that money and thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something of a camera. Durable value

Mitchell 16 on eBay.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

inlieubeaulieu wrote:Kodak announced, via facebook livestream, that the special edition will be coming out in early spring for $2k. way too much for me.
apparently "shortly" afterwards a cheaper model will be released (no timeline, or price point, given however)

Wasn't the Logmar camera like $5000? This one almost certainly won't be as stable, but with sound and the view screen and as a completely new camera from scratch, that's about what I'd expect it to cost. We keep comparing it to what's out on the used market but considering what a Canon 5D costs and people spend on digital cameras it's probably not out of the ballpark of possibility.

Granted, they'd sell more if they can get it to $600 or so but if they have to cut features to get it there it would be hard to justify even $600 when a decent old camera can be had for $100 or less.

The folks I've met from Kodak are nothing but crazy enthusiastic about film. Really good people that want to keep film alive and get it into our hands.

Kodak has always been about making cameras accessible to average people. Always about selling film. That was their brilliance 80 years ago; make cameras cheap so you sell a billion rolls of film. We had Beaulieu and Canon to make higher quality cameras and recently the Logmar for anyone who wanted the most stable Super 8 possible. Kodak's job was to create a camera for young people that have only known digital camcorders so that they could relate to it and use it comfortably. They didn't build it for us. They like us and appreciate us, but aren't going to make enough money to keep film alive just from us.

I have my SR's for serious shooting, I always think of Super 8 as something I can take around anywhere for home movies. In that regard, I think Kodak could have made it smaller like the size of a Canon AF-310xl to make it easier to carry around. I'd probably prefer an optical viewfinder but I'll try the view screen. Seems to me like focus will be an issue with any other lens than the stock one.

Does anyone know what a Beaulieu 4008 sold for new? I'd love to get an idea on how close the $2000 is to say 1972 prices...it would be roughly equivalent to $350 in 1972 prices.

Will2 wrote:That was their brilliance 80 years ago; make cameras cheap so you sell a billion rolls of film.

The other bone of contention: Eastman-Kodak discontinued colourless-base black-and-white reversal films in 1957. An Ã¢â‚¬Å“enhancedÃ¢â‚¬Â Plus-X reversal was then put on the market, the first of a bundle of grey-base stocks. You had PXR, TXR, 4-XR, TXTV 7727. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cheaper to make a dyed base than an undercoat. Profit maximisation presses on quality.

The only way to increase popularity of filmmaking is in my opinion to flood the market with affordable raw stock. Those who stay away from buying the new Super-8 camera will still buy film. It is a fact that most old cameras are much better serviceable than later makes. As a technician who repairs and overhauls film cameras I tend to state: the older the better. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no comparison between a 1930s Bell & Howell Filmo Eight and any of the plastic toys from the sixties or seventies. Super-8 was a huge business and a big flam at the same time. Geometrically, image surface is 41.53 percent bigger compared to Regular-8 (maximum projectable area) but the upright perforation hole performs less favourably than the horizontal one of 8-R. All other types of film perforation have a horizontal oblong hole. But before I get anal about that let me add this one thing: open film on spools or cores is more honest. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to purchase a single-use coax cartridge with 50 feet of stock that prevents backwinding. There were 50-ft. and 100-ft. spool 8mm cameras around long before Super 8, namely SuchÃƒÂ¡nek Admira Ledvinka 8 (1934), Paillard-Bolex H-8 (1938), Fairchild Cinephonic 8 (1960). For the rest, 25-ft. loads were practical enough for millions.

In my experience Super 8 cameras are more ergonomic than Regular 8 cameras. They have brighter viewfinders, they are easier to focus, have reliable auto exposure and the cartridge format is much easier to load and use. If you are projecting reversal film, the projectors are of a higher specification and the position of the sprocket hole is such that super 8 can be cut and edited in such a way that the splices cannot be detected.